To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DeleuzePhilosophy/. You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
@@kadaganchivinod8003 You're right, there is something which tells me that these philosophers found something deeper than everyone else (Bergson, Nietzsche, Deleuze, Jung)
Another excellent explication and illustration of a concept I hadn’t even considered much before. I think with this video you yourself must experience a “propitious Act of Creation” that helps your followers to realize something more profound. Great work!
Fantastic video as always. Thank you. I love your voice btw. I play soccer and music. In both settings I’ve felt that sense of creation where everything is willed and automatic. It’s such a good feeling. Sometimes I’ll do something while playing soccer that I didn’t even know I could do. I find the best way to find this rhythm is to balance thought and perception. There’s a certain amount of thought that’s required for tactics and communication. But then there are moments when things are rolling in the right direction and that’s when to let thought go and really focus on as much as you can perceive. The body can lead the way from there. There’s an important idea in soccer of being in the right place at the right time. Some of the best strikers were amazing at just that (Pippo Inzaghi comes to mind - look up some videos). I find a lot of that timing (which provides the space) comes from this balance of thought and perception, mind and body. And when these are firing in the good sequence that sort of creative flow can really explode.
Hey Kyle! Yes I completely agree, "doing something I didn't know I could do" is a perfect formula. It's quite interesting to see that it's the exact same thing that happens in sports, music and also writing (which I think Deleuze evokes in these terms in some places), where we're being "lead by the body". I appreciate you watching!
How does he explain the transition between the common notions and the essence : the associative notions (imaginative, fire) and the essential notion (contemplative, light) ? I think we understand the essence of the object itself not continuously after understanding its relations, but with a new gap : because of the subjective universal symbol given by the object, not by the object itslef. We can have a universal knowledge only if we search inside. And maybe we can say that if the profound subject is identical to the object, having a subjective knowledge is also knowing the object itself. For this reason, individuation / attain the highest level of the reason can be related to the knowledge of the object (which is equivalent to the transcendantal subject?) The question is : life : is it somewhere else than in the subject ? Is the object really attainable by the subject ? If yes, to what extent ?
Good question! The passage from common notions to eternal essences is done when the subject becomes active (Spinoza calls bliss "active contemplation"), that is, when I become able to affect myself with objects (ideas) that I create--typically, philosophical concepts. This does not produce common notions, as, in a certain sense, this knowledge is individual (even though it can be shared), but it produces adequate and individual knowledge nonetheless. So while we can never really grasp external objects in their complete noumenal reality, we can grasp "what we do" completely, to the extent that we create something new.
Thus the oxymoron "social sciences" denies scientific method while pretending to be scientific to claim truth for things that aren't true using Hegel's method of talking BS
Well, there's a passage in the seminars where Deleuze explains that the humanities tend to avoid final causes in order to maintain the scientificity of their discourse, which means that they "get stuck" at the structural level. People like Gabriel Tarde or Gustave Guillaume tried to create a genetic method by studying the micro-level of society/language. I'd imagine other people today in the humanities have tried similar things!
Bergson's philosophy has been widely debunked. Bertrand Russell, for example "saw Bergson's arguments at best as persuasive or emotive speculation but not at all as any worthwhile example of sound reasoning or philosophical insight.
@@RayG817 It's true that philosophers disagree, of course, but to say that Bergson's metaphysics can be debunked means 1) that you treat it like a scientific model, which it isn't, and 2) that you know something about it that Bergson didn't, which is impossible. Having and formulating different metaphysical problems doesn't mean that other problems are wrong, but rather that they express different interests. Also, I can't find anything about "persuasive or emotive speculation" in Russell's essay on Bergson--which thus appears to be a claim that is extremely unfair to both Russell and Bergson.
@@deleuzephilosophy His concept of elan vital has been debunked by genetics. His concept of duration was debunked by Einstein's theory of Relativity. His concept of intuition attempted to debunk Kant's theory of Knowledge...and lost.
@@RayG817 Elan vital is not a fact which is incompatible with genetics, it is not something material. Bergson tried to find a metaphysical intuition by an inspiration from the knowledge given by the facts with biology for example, but this intuition is not a real fact like a material thing. Likewise, genetics are not something more than a material thing. Elan vital is something more than just a theory of genetics. Genetics seems to prove that everything is innate, in the genome, but we can't find our spirits in the genome, we just find matter. We can't prove that all the consciousness is already in a gene, or a sperm. Bergson says that consciousness developps interacting with matter. Bergson wrote a book about Einstein theory, he explains that Duration is not the Time of Einstein, because the concept of time by einstein is space dependant. Duration is out of space.
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DeleuzePhilosophy/. You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
Spinoza, Nietzsche, Deleuze. Can it get better than that? Great video.
Thanks a lot mate!
Henri Bergson too
@@kadaganchivinod8003 You're right, there is something which tells me that these philosophers found something deeper than everyone else (Bergson, Nietzsche, Deleuze, Jung)
Thank you for your work! I’m always excited when you post a new video.
If possible, I’d also love to learn more about works with Guattari from you.
You're welcome, thank you for watching and for the request! It's a big endeavour, but I'll definitely think about it.
Awesome and highly educative videos, thank you keep it up!! I love your editing you make deleuzes ideas much clearer
Thank you, I'll certainly try! I'm very glad it makes Deleuze more accessible :)
Ayyyy congrats on scoring the sponsorship! And in such a fascinating video!!
Thanks a lot Daniel 🙌 Super happy you liked the video! Yes I’m grateful for the support on the sponsorship, it's quite unexpected but very awesome :)
Just started Spinoza: Practical Philosophy, so this is perfect timing. Thanks for the upload mate
You're welcome, thanks for watching! Happy readings
Excellent work, thanks for your dedication
Thank you my friend, I appreciate it!
Sending love.
Well received, will share! Thank you :)
Another excellent explication and illustration of a concept I hadn’t even considered much before.
I think with this video you yourself must experience a “propitious Act of Creation” that helps your followers to realize something more profound. Great work!
Thanks a lot Brian, I really appreciate it! Well that's certainly my hope ;) I'm glad you appreciate this content!
Good video!
Yaaaay ne w videoooooooo lestasdagogooOOOOO
Let's go!
Fantastic video as always. Thank you. I love your voice btw.
I play soccer and music. In both settings I’ve felt that sense of creation where everything is willed and automatic. It’s such a good feeling. Sometimes I’ll do something while playing soccer that I didn’t even know I could do. I find the best way to find this rhythm is to balance thought and perception. There’s a certain amount of thought that’s required for tactics and communication. But then there are moments when things are rolling in the right direction and that’s when to let thought go and really focus on as much as you can perceive. The body can lead the way from there. There’s an important idea in soccer of being in the right place at the right time. Some of the best strikers were amazing at just that (Pippo Inzaghi comes to mind - look up some videos). I find a lot of that timing (which provides the space) comes from this balance of thought and perception, mind and body. And when these are firing in the good sequence that sort of creative flow can really explode.
Hey Kyle! Yes I completely agree, "doing something I didn't know I could do" is a perfect formula. It's quite interesting to see that it's the exact same thing that happens in sports, music and also writing (which I think Deleuze evokes in these terms in some places), where we're being "lead by the body". I appreciate you watching!
@ thanks for making the videos 💙💙
Thanks a lot for your efforts! 🤯🙏
You're welcome, thank you for watching!
this guy gets it
nice
As brilliant - thank you!
Thanks a lot mate, I appreciate it!
How does he explain the transition between the common notions and the essence : the associative notions (imaginative, fire) and the essential notion (contemplative, light) ? I think we understand the essence of the object itself not continuously after understanding its relations, but with a new gap : because of the subjective universal symbol given by the object, not by the object itslef. We can have a universal knowledge only if we search inside. And maybe we can say that if the profound subject is identical to the object, having a subjective knowledge is also knowing the object itself. For this reason, individuation / attain the highest level of the reason can be related to the knowledge of the object (which is equivalent to the transcendantal subject?)
The question is : life : is it somewhere else than in the subject ? Is the object really attainable by the subject ? If yes, to what extent ?
Good question! The passage from common notions to eternal essences is done when the subject becomes active (Spinoza calls bliss "active contemplation"), that is, when I become able to affect myself with objects (ideas) that I create--typically, philosophical concepts. This does not produce common notions, as, in a certain sense, this knowledge is individual (even though it can be shared), but it produces adequate and individual knowledge nonetheless. So while we can never really grasp external objects in their complete noumenal reality, we can grasp "what we do" completely, to the extent that we create something new.
@@deleuzephilosophy Thank you!
Thus the oxymoron "social sciences" denies scientific method while pretending to be scientific to claim truth for things that aren't true using Hegel's method of talking BS
Well, there's a passage in the seminars where Deleuze explains that the humanities tend to avoid final causes in order to maintain the scientificity of their discourse, which means that they "get stuck" at the structural level. People like Gabriel Tarde or Gustave Guillaume tried to create a genetic method by studying the micro-level of society/language. I'd imagine other people today in the humanities have tried similar things!
Bergson's philosophy has been widely debunked. Bertrand Russell, for example "saw Bergson's arguments at best as persuasive or emotive speculation but not at all as any worthwhile example of sound reasoning or philosophical insight.
You could debunk it, if it was something like a scientific model or an axiomatic system, but that's precisely what metaphysics isn't
@@deleuzephilosophy Well, you need to tell that to all the metaphysicians who have been debunking each other's theories for the last 1,000 years.
@@RayG817 It's true that philosophers disagree, of course, but to say that Bergson's metaphysics can be debunked means 1) that you treat it like a scientific model, which it isn't, and 2) that you know something about it that Bergson didn't, which is impossible. Having and formulating different metaphysical problems doesn't mean that other problems are wrong, but rather that they express different interests.
Also, I can't find anything about "persuasive or emotive speculation" in Russell's essay on Bergson--which thus appears to be a claim that is extremely unfair to both Russell and Bergson.
@@deleuzephilosophy His concept of elan vital has been debunked by genetics. His concept of duration was debunked by Einstein's theory of Relativity. His concept of intuition attempted to debunk Kant's theory of Knowledge...and lost.
@@RayG817 Elan vital is not a fact which is incompatible with genetics, it is not something material. Bergson tried to find a metaphysical intuition by an inspiration from the knowledge given by the facts with biology for example, but this intuition is not a real fact like a material thing. Likewise, genetics are not something more than a material thing. Elan vital is something more than just a theory of genetics. Genetics seems to prove that everything is innate, in the genome, but we can't find our spirits in the genome, we just find matter. We can't prove that all the consciousness is already in a gene, or a sperm. Bergson says that consciousness developps interacting with matter.
Bergson wrote a book about Einstein theory, he explains that Duration is not the Time of Einstein, because the concept of time by einstein is space dependant. Duration is out of space.